To strengthen Russia's security, it is necessary to forcefully re-equip the army with the latest non-nuclear weapons
The creation of an innovative economy instead of a raw material economy, as mentioned in the President's Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, is also a necessary condition for the modernization of the military-industrial complex and the rearmament of the army with the latest weapons. The Russian army is 90% armed with morally and physically depreciated weapons.
So in service are mostly obsolete 20 thousand tanks and 1,800 combat aircraft still of Soviet production. Two thirds of them are in need of major repairs. The ammunition industry is in the worst condition. Those ammunition (shells, mines, aerial bombs, missiles, etc.) that were manufactured in the USSR has expired a safe storage period and it is dangerous to use them for shooting, there may be premature explosions and death of people, guns, aircraft, helicopters, ships that this ammunition is used. There is practically nowhere to produce new ammunition, since the equipment of ammunition enterprises is outdated, and qualified personnel have left the industry and have lost their qualifications. An unfortunate situation has developed in the field of nuclear weapons, created in the USSR, which have a certain shelf life. The creation of new nuclear weapons is impossible without experimental nuclear explosions, which are prohibited by international agreements.
In such a situation, Russia will inevitably be deprived of its nuclear weapons. In the United States, a similar situation is developing with nuclear weapons. But the American army has undergone rearmament with the latest non-nuclear weapons, unlike Russia, and in the event of a war, Russia will be practically defenseless. The aggressiveness of the United States is supported by a huge military budget, which is more than 15 times larger than the Russian one. The strategic goal of the United States is the unhindered use of the limited natural resources of the Earth (oil, gas, metals, etc.) with the help of world domination based on military force, since the economic power based on the uncontrolled emission of the dollar in recent decades is coming to an end.
The most serious obstacle to the solution of this task is the Russian strategic nuclear forces, which are the only ones in the world capable of destroying the United States in the first strike, but Russia does not create a territorial missile defense system and is not able to defend itself against a devastating retaliatory strike, unlike the United States, which is actively building such a missile defense system. The START Treaty, which has now been signed by the Presidents of Russia and the United States, on the reduction of nuclear warheads and their carriers is aimed at reducing our nuclear missile potential. That is, for Russia there is the prospect of losing the effectiveness of strategic nuclear forces (SNF): firstly, due to the impossibility of modernizing nuclear charges in the absence of their tests, secondly, due to the reduction of strategic nuclear forces under the START treaty and, thirdly, due to the intensively developing US missile defense territory, which Russia does not have.
At present, the strategic nuclear forces of NATO countries (the United States, Britain and France) have a significant advantage over the strategic nuclear forces of Russia, only the United States has 1195 strategic carriers of nuclear weapons and 5573 nuclear warheads, as well as thousands of strategic cruise missiles, Russia has 811 carriers and 3906 nuclear warheads.
The United States has long been preparing its armed forces to destroy the Soviet, and now Russian, strategic nuclear forces in the first surprise attack, while the remnants of Russian nuclear warheads that survived such a strike must be shot down by the American missile defense system. Colonel General Ivashov writes about this: "For the first time since the start of the nuclear race, the United States has a chance to reliably cover the Russian strategic potential with a missile defense system and an arsenal of high-precision cruise missiles in conjunction with electronic suppression of control systems." In the NVO (see No. 41, 2009), Major General Belous said about this problem: "A surprise strike by 50-60 sea-based nuclear cruise missiles could disrupt a counterattack by Russia's strategic forces."
American specialists have a similar point of view: “The United States will soon be able to destroy the long-range nuclear potential of Russia and China by a first strike with cruise missiles with nuclear warheads invisible to Russian and Chinese radars” (Foreign affairs. March, April, 2006). In such conditions, when a real threat of destruction looms over the Russian strategic nuclear forces, the START Treaty should at least, firstly, freeze the American missile defense system, and secondly, take into account the strategic nuclear forces of Britain and France, since in the event of a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, British and French missiles will fly to Russia, not the United States, and thirdly, the US strategic nuclear forces accounting for strategic cruise missiles. The START Treaty only mentions a non-legally binding relationship between strategic nuclear forces and missile defense, as well as an oral statement by the Russian president that the Russian Federation will withdraw from the START Treaty if the development of missile defense becomes dangerous for our country.
But as long as the United States conducts research and development on missile defense (while they will try to keep them secret), Russia will have no reason to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and when they adopt it, Russia's withdrawal from START becomes useless. The START Treaty does not contain requirements for freezing missile defense, for strategic nuclear forces of England and France (and this is more than 400 nuclear weapons capable of destroying 400 Russian cities), as well as for the reduction and control of cruise missiles, but only a mutual reduction of strategic carriers to 700 units is recorded. and 1,550 nuclear warheads.
This jeopardizes the national security of Russia, since the Russian strategic nuclear forces are enclosed in a rigid framework under the START Treaty, and the American cruise missiles and missile defense, as well as the strategic nuclear forces of England and France, will develop uncontrollably to a level where they will make it possible to destroy the Russian strategic nuclear forces with impunity.
To strengthen Russia's national security, it is necessary to strengthen and protect strategic nuclear forces from a first strike, as well as timely detection of not only ballistic, but also cruise missiles participating in the first strike, which is necessary for an effective retaliatory strike, unacceptable for the United States. This will reduce the likelihood of a first US strike on Russian strategic nuclear forces.
To strengthen Russia's security, it is also necessary to forcefully re-equip the army with the latest non-nuclear weapons, but this requires the appropriate means. According to the Russian President, about 23 trillion rubles are required to re-equip the army by 2020. rubles, that is, an average of 2.3 trillion. in year. The defense budget of Russia for 2010 is 1.3 trillion. rubles, while the state budget expenditures are not secured by one third of revenues, the lack of which is compensated for from the reserve fund, which ends this year. According to the forecasts of the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation, the country's economy will reach the pre-crisis level only by 2014, and no one knows what will happen to the economy next. That is, in the foreseeable future, the state does not have the funds to fulfill the plan to re-equip the army with the latest weapons of at least 70% by 2020 with the existing corrupt management system in Russia, when the amount of annual corruption is 10 times higher than the state's defense budget.
In this regard, the following fundamental questions arise: first, who is interested and who is not in modernization? In his article "Forward Russia!" The Russian president said that “corrupt officials” and entrepreneurs who “do nothing” are against modernization. Secondly, where can we find the necessary funds to modernize morally and physically depreciated industrial sectors created in the USSR (military-industrial complex, agriculture, medicine, housing and communal services, mechanical engineering, transport, etc.), and the creation of science-intensive industries? Third, what kind of management system is needed to modernize the economy? The modern management system is riddled with corruption and is not suitable for solving strategic tasks, including the rearmament of the army, set by the president. Without a satisfactory solution to these fundamental issues, the president's proposals for modernizing the economy cannot be fulfilled.
The first problem: who is interested and on whom can the president rely in the implementation of modernization in practice? Scientists, engineers, uncorrupted managers, workers, etc., that is, labor collectives of enterprises, research institutes, universities, etc., as well as students - future members of labor collectives, are primarily interested in modernizing the economy, increasing labor productivity and a corresponding increase in income. But in order to realize this interest in appropriate practical actions, labor collectives must have a legislatively enshrined right to control entrepreneurs. At the end of the 1990s, the State Duma of the Russian Federation considered a draft law “On labor collectives”. This law passed the first reading, but then was withdrawn from consideration.
It is necessary to pass this law with the help of the president, then the president will find millions of active assistants in the modernization of the country.
The second problem: where to get funds for modernization and creation of an innovative economy? If they are borrowed from the West, then Russia, firstly, may again get bogged down in debt, and secondly, it is unprofitable for the West to create an innovative economy in Russia that is competitive on the world market, and to re-equip the army with the latest weapons. But in Russia there are funds necessary for these purposes, they are in a "tied" state. Let's consider the main sources of these funds.
1. Accumulated in the former Stabilization Fund and the reserves of the Central Bank of about $ 600 billion (18 trillion rubles). A third of these funds have already been spent to combat the crisis. On the one hand, it strengthened the banking system, which was not suitable for financing production, and also doubled the number of dollar billionaires. On the other hand, the ruble devalued by one third, loans and working capital for enterprises decreased, consumption of the majority of the population decreased due to inflation and ruble devaluation, unemployment increased, production decreased, etc.
2. Corruption, which is estimated at 12 trillion. rub. in year. These are 10 (ten!) Annual defense budgets. On the one hand, corruption permeates the state administrative apparatus, and this undermines the actions of official authorities (the president, government, State Duma, etc.). On the other hand, corruption takes money away from entrepreneurs, which is necessary for modernization, and from citizens, which lowers their living standards.
3. Over the years of reforms, more than 2 trillion rubles were exported abroad. Doll.
4. The necessary funds can be received into the budget through the state monopoly on natural rent and "sinful" goods (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), as well as through the introduction of a progressive tax on citizens' incomes, etc.
5. Russian citizens receive almost half of their income from the “shadow” economy, which halves the taxes collected by the state. The shadow economy employs 25 million people who do not pay taxes.
6. One of the sources of funds for investment should be the targeted emission of the Central Bank, since the ratio of the amount of money in the Russian economy to GDP is only about 40%, in developed countries about 100%, in China - 150%.
The political will of the president is needed to channel these funds towards the modernization of Russia. Mobilizing even part of the funds from these sources will allow to increase at least twice the budget required to modernize the national economy and create an innovative economy, as well as to increase spending on defense and security, production, education, science, culture, and the social sphere.
The third problem concerns a new management system adequate to modern tasks. The modernization of traditional industries and the creation of new high-tech industries are impossible without the suppression of corruption. 2.5 million people (officials and entrepreneurs) are involved in "business" corruption, and half of the population is involved in "everyday" corruption. To solve this problem, a systematic approach is required, including a package of anti-corruption laws (it was adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation and is effective from 01.01.09), a revision of all previously adopted laws in terms of their "corruption component", ensuring the effective operation of the law enforcement and judicial system (without bribes, gang roofs and telephone law).
But it is especially important to create effective control over both “corrupt officials” and “entrepreneurs who do nothing”. Elected government bodies both in the Center and at the local level should control the executive power (for this it is necessary to adopt the prepared draft law on parliamentary control), and the elected councils of labor collectives should control the administration of enterprises, as required by the draft law “On labor collectives”. This opens up public administration for public control and creates a society of free and responsible people, as President Dmitry Medvedev spoke about in his message.
The main element of the new management system is the optimal combination of planned and market management methods. Such management methods were used with great success during the NEP (1921-1928) and in modern China since 1978 (where GDP increased 15 times in 30 years), in relation to their tasks and capabilities.
Let us compare the results of reforms in China and Russia, where different management methods have been used in the framework of a market economy over the past 19 years.
Since 1990, China's GDP has grown more than 5 (five!) Times. During the same period in Russia it was possible to restore the GDP level of 1990 after the decline in the 90s, but of a lower quality (the knowledge-intensive sector of the economy was practically destroyed, science and education suffered great damage, the demographic situation deteriorated sharply, the "excess mortality" was about 15 million, insufficient supply of the army with the latest weapons, etc.), that is, in fact, there was a significant decline in GDP.
In the midst of the crisis, over the nine months of 2009, China's GDP increased by about 8%, while in Russia, the GDP contracted by 10%, and industry fell by 15%. How can you explain such a huge difference in the results of reforms in China and in Russia over the past 19 years? Main reason: different management methods are used. In China, there are planned-market methods of management, while in Russia a corrupt bureaucratic management system prevails. In China, there is a state plan, which is constantly engaged in planning and forecasting for 15-20 years, the public sector includes energy, extractive industries, aerospace, military-industrial complex, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, metallurgy, etc.
The land is in state and collective ownership. Banks are mostly state-owned. There are two types of banks: commercial, profit-oriented, and political, which provide long-term loans at low interest rates to meet government development objectives. More than 90% of prices are dictated by the market. The state sets fixed prices for basic products (oil, gas, electricity, metals, etc.). To suppress corruption, a system of measures is used: control of labor collectives over the administration of enterprises, confiscation of property, public processes, the death penalty, control over the income and expenses of officials and their relatives, etc.
The market planning system in China allows for an active investment policy, which, despite the chronic budget deficit (6-10% of GDP) and a large amount of money in the economy, restrains inflation (in 2007-2008 it was 5-6% in China per year, while in Russia - 10-13%). The share of investment in Russia's GDP is less than 20% versus 50% in China. A powerful inflow of investments determines the rapid growth of the Chinese economy. In China, a progressive scale of income tax is used (from 5 to 45%), while in Russia this tax is 13% for all citizens, as a result, significant funds are not received in the budget.
To modernize and create an innovative economy, a new management system is required, including a state plan (of the type in China and India) and a system of state banks capable of issuing long-term loans to production at low interest rates. The program for the modernization of the national economy should be developed by the State Planning Committee together with the Russian Academy of Sciences and leading universities with a focus on the fundamental provisions of the Address of the President of Russia. The liberal economists who now rule the Russian economy cannot manage the new management system, including the state plan and the state banking system, since the liberal theory of the free market, on which they rely, is, in principle, unsuitable in the face of crisis and economic restructuring. The new administrative apparatus requires specialists who have experience in public administration and understand the need for an optimal combination of planned and market management methods in modern conditions.
